leroy wrote:however it is still a fact that this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfa ... onditional) does not prove that a counterfactual premise IS ALWAYS FALLACIOUS..................agree?

hackenslashI agree that the article doesn't support that claim, and I've already said this.

so ether admit that, the article does not prove that CF are necessarily fallacious and provide a source that actually supports that statement, or explain to me and to hackenslash exactly what part of the article proves it.

Not the point of my argument, and I love how you use a counterfactual as an example. The matter that ended up making that calculator could have ended up making anything, calculator or not. Again, you need to demonstrate that our universe could have been different, otherwise, your enumerating of the initial conditions is moot. The reason we know the calculator is fine-tuned is because we can compare it to things that are not fine-tuned

again calculators and universes could be FT even if they could have not been different, to be FT does not imply that "it could have been different" no where in the definition of FT does it say that could have been different is a necessary property of being FT

The reason we know the calculator is fine-tuned is because we can compare it to things that are not fine-tuned

maybe, but that is irrelevant, what I am saying is that a calculator would be FT even if it would have been created by a deterministic mechanism, (a robot for example) that could have not been different ..................could have been different is not a necessary property of FT, or at least you haven't shown it to be the case.

leroy wrote:however it is still a fact that this article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterfa ... onditional) does not prove that a counterfactual premise IS ALWAYS FALLACIOUS..................agree?

hackenslashI agree that the article doesn't support that claim, and I've already said this.

so ether admit that, the article does not prove that CF are necessarily fallacious and provide a source that actually supports that statement, or explain to me and to hackenslash exactly what part of the article proves it.

[emphasis added]

Wait, what? First you say the source does prove it, then you say it does not. Perhaps if you stopped mindlessly responding, this would not happen. Beyond that, it does and work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:

Not the point of my argument, and I love how you use a counterfactual as an example. The matter that ended up making that calculator could have ended up making anything, calculator or not. Again, you need to demonstrate that our universe could have been different, otherwise, your enumerating of the initial conditions is moot. The reason we know the calculator is fine-tuned is because we can compare it to things that are not fine-tuned

again calculators and universes could be FT even if they could have not been different, to be FT does not imply that "it could have been different" no where in the definition of FT does it say that could have been different is a necessary property of being FT

he_who_is_nobody wrote:You are missing the demonstration that any of those observations you keep listing are "within a very narrow range" and if "only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to" lead to the development of life. Heck, I would be fine if you could demonstrate that those initial conditions you keep pointing to could be different. Until you are able to make those demonstrations, listing those observations is moot. If only you would read my post, you would already know this.

If things are in a "very narrow range" and it says if things were "only slightly different", than it is implying that things could have been different. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

Did you think because you took so long to respond I would forget this?

leroy wrote:

The reason we know the calculator is fine-tuned is because we can compare it to things that are not fine-tuned

maybe, but that is irrelevant, what I am saying is that a calculator would be FT even if it would have been created by a deterministic mechanism, (a robot for example) that could have not been different ..................could have been different is not a necessary property of FT, or at least you haven't shown it to be the case.

You have no idea what you are arguing for anymore, do you? Fine-tuning implies that things could have been different. I have pointed out that using the definition that we both agreed with above. How that fine-tuning came about is irrelevant. Beyond that, if I smashed a calculator it would no longer be fine-tuned, right? That is because its fine-tuning depends on how it is arranged. If it were arranged different, the calculator would no longer be fine-tuned, again, how it was made is irrelevant to this.

he_who_is_nobody wrote:[quoteWait, what? First you say the source does prove it, then you say it does not. Perhaps if you stopped mindlessly responding, this would not happen. Beyond that, it does and work on your reading comprehension.

it does not prove it, stop lying to yourself, anyone can read the article and note that the article does not even claim that CF are fallacious.

If things are in a "very narrow range" and it says if things were "only slightly different", than it is implying that things could have been different. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

non of that implies that things could have been different. a rage could be narrow even if no other spot is possible, and the fact that we could hypothetically make them slightly different does not mean that it is possible to do it.

the universe could or could have not been different, that is irrelevant for the claim that the universe is FT.

?

You have no idea what you are arguing for anymore, do you? Fine-tuning implies that things could have been different. .

anyone can reed the definition of FT and note that FT does not imply that things could have been different

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.[

leroy wrote:we ve been here before...................Why don't you simply write a small conclusion and I will write mine and end with this conversation, none of us has anything new to add.

Oh well.

leroy wrote:

he_who_is_nobody wrote:Wait, what? First you say the source does prove it, then you say it does not. Perhaps if you stopped mindlessly responding, this would not happen. Beyond that, it does and work on your reading comprehension.

it does not prove it, stop lying to yourself, anyone can read the article and note that the article does not even claim that CF are fallacious.

Once again, work on your reading comprehension.

leroy wrote:

If things are in a "very narrow range" and it says if things were "only slightly different", than it is implying that things could have been different. Again, work on your reading comprehension.

non of that implies that things could have been different. a rage could be narrow even if no other spot is possible, and the fact that we could hypothetically make them slightly different does not mean that it is possible to do it.

You have no idea what you are arguing for anymore, do you? Fine-tuning implies that things could have been different. .

anyone can reed the definition of FT and note that FT does not imply that things could have been different

The fine-tuned Universe is the proposition that the conditions that allow life in the Universe can occur only when certain universal dimensionless physical constants lie within a very narrow range, so that if any of several fundamental constants were only slightly different, the Universe would be unlikely to be conducive to the establishment and development of matter, astronomical structures, elemental diversity, or life as it is understood.[

he_who_is_nobody wrote:You have no idea what you are arguing for anymore, do you? Fine-tuning implies that things could have been different. I have pointed out that using the definition that we both agreed with above. How that fine-tuning came about is irrelevant. Beyond that, if I smashed a calculator it would no longer be fine-tuned, right? That is because its fine-tuning depends on how it is arranged. If it were arranged different, the calculator would no longer be fine-tuned, again, how it was made is irrelevant to this.

Just because you ignore what was said, does not mean it has gone away. It just makes you look pathetic for not addressing valid points.

But - and this is without having read up on the latest developments on this thread - I'm just wondering what the point of bringing this up is?

the point of the video is that given the assumption that the low entropy of the universe is a result of chance, it would me more likely that we are BB and that our observations of low entropy (many stars and galaxies) are just an illusion, or a dream.

Given the assumption that our universe is a random member of a multiverse, there are more universes where observers imagine a universe with low entropy, than universes with real low entropy. therefore any observation of low entropy should be interpreted as an illusion (or a dream)

this is relevant because these assumptions where made by members form this forum (dragan, Ness, wark etc.).................I am arguing that the BB paradox provides strong evidence against those assumptions

I was so enjoying him/her writing 600 posts of 'No it doesn't. or 'You're wrong.' and not once ever feeling the need to substantiate a single declaration, support a single assertion, or evidence a claim.

Well, the answer to that for now and always is: then you've mistaken your ideas for facts and mistaken your prejudices as ideas, and your aggressively flopping your prejudices around is a bad enough reflection on you without pretending you're doing it on behalf of a religion or religious belief too.

Christianity would never have been so bad if it wasn't just chock full of these people who call themselves Christians.

thenexttodie wrote:I see no reason why Creationists should hold themselves to these same constraints.

Precisely.

Creationists do not see why they should be held to the same constraints of logic, reason, evidence, burden of proof, argumentative courtesy and the likes. They think the mere fact that they believe in this ideology which says god made the universe and that 'he' wants a special secret relationship with us that anything they think must automagically be true with respect to their faith or religious beliefs. That's why you all piss on the same fires all the time and never noticed your house has long since burned down.

Gravity doesn't bother you guys much anymore, but your ideological brethren were none too happy with all that poking around investigating nature and discovering heliocentrism. Why? Because they were just as cocksure, arrogant, ignorant and overbearing as your rank and file Creationist today who's slurping on one of the numerous propaganda teats the circle-jerk of internet algorithms provides them. Those self-declared intermediaries to the creator of the universe were educated for their times, but compared to the education level today, they'd need to join a class for 7 or 8 year olds. That also precisely mimics the approximate level of education of most Creationists.

No you don't care about gravity or heliocentrism anymore (well, mostly), you only care about what arises in the paucity of your collective imaginations as a threat: evolution because humans are special sauce , cosmology because magic man maded it, no I don't know how, but I KNOW HE did , global floods because who cares about there being no fucking evidence... if my proxy brain tells me to believe it happened, then it did!

Over and over again we hear the same chorus from Creationists - the refusal to recognize the primacy of evidence in a claim. It's all a big shell game to distract from the fact that you believe in something which has no evidence at all which puts you on precise par with every other religion humanity has made up in their ignorance and fear over the millennia. How does it never strike you that a Hindu's confidence in their gods is the exact same degree as yours, and yet you know they have no fucking good reason to believe at all, but can't see it in yourself?

But what's really contemptible is that you dullards think you are on par with the rest of the world when it comes to credibility of your poxy idea. If the knowledge of the modern world were represented as a Blue Whale, Creationism would be the pimple on the frictional suppuration of the anus of a syphilitic chipmunk who gets off on anally inserting razorwire and tells you all about it at the dinner table. Creationists are the 21st century equivalent of peasants and they are sheared and fleeced for their ignorance by nasty little snake oil salesman, parasites who have made a living out of the gullible as long as there have been humans, always with the special connection with the gods or spirits, always the promises of eternal bliss, or everlasting peace, the same childish story spat out again and again and you never stop lapping it up.

Creationism is a running joke in universities and any place where knowledge is the currency of the industry. And to be clear, the reason Creationism is a running joke is not because you're Christian and God predicted woooo that Christians would be woooo mocked for their beliefs because that supposes that their beliefs are not in direct fucking contradiction to the same empirical reality they believe their god created. The grandest example of the Stolen Concept Fallacy ever perpetrated to go along with the biggest hoax ever foisted.

How do you convince a sufferer of Stockholm Syndrome that their supposed savior is really their oppressor? When that savior exists solely in their head, they stupidly believe they own the salvation and consequently that the sum of their actions will always result in the best possible outcome for them, and probably for those they love too, but not for any of those terrible people down there doing those terribly different things to us. That's what Christianity is in a nutshell - a nagging old busybody complaining that it ain't like it used to be, failing to remember that it used to be shite.

Sparhafoc wrote:There are more people dreaming of sex than having sex, therefore sex should just be considered an illusion.

You think you shagged your other half to within in an inch of reconstructive surgery, whereas you were in fact simply dozing. Babies are what happen when you have a nightmare.

Incidentally, 1 Deepak 2 Deepak 3 Deepak 4.

well sex is usually a product of design (intent) therefore your analogy does not apply.

a correct analogy would be>if you consider the probabilities of having sex by chance vs the probability of dreaming about sex the later seems to be more probable therefore if you observe yourself having sex just by chance it is probably that you are just dreaming.

of course with sex by chance I mean sex without any intent,

this is analogous to>if you consider the probabilities of having a universe with low that came in to existence by chance vs the probability of dreaming that you live in such universe, the second is more probable therefore if you observe yourself living in a universe with low entropy just by chance it is probably that you are just dreaming

sure as the video explained, you don't have to assume that the low entropy of the universe was caused by chance, it could be that the low entropy was caused by some non random mechanism, you don't even need to invoke God, many naturalistic (chanceless) explanations have been proposed

leroy wrote:well sex is usually a product of design (intent) therefore your analogy does not apply.

Assertion just makes you an ass.

Cite your source for this assertion, or consider it rejected by honest people with honest minds who value honesty.

Secondly, sex is not a product of design, so your typical bullshit obfuscation is dismissed. Next random assemblage of words you want to assert as reality.

Thirdly, sex is an evolved behavior, and the notion of intent with respect to evolved behaviors is full of genuine philosophical problems I've already educated you about, but which you've ignored and just trotted out again as if I'm just to accept your nonsensical bullshit as fact.

Fourthly, in reality, there's the appearance of design which is not design and therefore not intent, and there is design which is done with intent, and finally there is design which is designed but not done with intent.

You therefore won't confuse me with your subnormal intelligence equivocation, LEROY, but I will enjoy showing how you need to engage in simplification in order to sneak your pathetic arguments past critical scrutiny.

So all of your sentence was wrong and incoherent. Rejected. Not accepted. Therefore you can't continue to use it as a postulate in your discussion. You can either a) go back to the drawing board and explain yourself better, perhaps try and use empirical evidence for your claims that people can independently inspect, or b) you can try a new argument not yet used.

So what's the bet you choose c? The Goebbels School of Argumentation?

leroy wrote:a correct analogy would be>if you consider the probabilities of having sex by chance vs the probability of dreaming about sex the later seems to be more probable therefore if you observe yourself having sex just by chance it is probably that you are just dreaming.

of course with sex by chance I mean sex without any intent,

Of course you mean word salad, because word salad.

Yes, I think we all know by now, LEROY. When your previous argument was shown wrong, and you lack the competence to respond to that rebuttal, then you try to pretend your argument was something else, and it gradually becomes less and less coherent as you shift through your Russian Doll arguments, desperately trying to evade ever admitting error ever.

We don't care if you don't admit error, LEROY - you're still shown wrong whether you acknowledge it or not... but what's pathetic to watch is a fellow human being so full of their own sense of self-worth that they will invest dramatic amounts of time and emotional energy into arguing with people just to engage in this drama of evading inspecting held beliefs.

What a sorry state to be in. As I said, the thing that links all cultures across all human history are the core components of stories: the hero's journey. It's a metaphor for life, you see. We play many parts, we become many things, we change, grow, and achieve.

The most primary difference in all those stories, including your very own 'holy' narrative, between the protagonist and antagonist - the hero and the bad guy, is that the bad guy can't change. They lack the ability to understand their own stupid, self-defeating actions even when it's only themselves who make them fail time and time again.

You can be more, LEROY, but you won't let yourself be.

No skin off my nose, the only sad thing is that the antagonist needs to be credible for it to be a good story, and you're far from it.

leroy wrote:this is analogous to>if you consider the probabilities of having a universe with low that came in to existence by chance vs the probability of dreaming that you live in such universe, the second is more probable therefore if you observe yourself living in a universe with low entropy just by chance it is probably that you are just dreaming

Provide the calculations so they can be independently inspected, or your assertion is rejected as the wibbling of a barely sentient primate.

How does one calculate the probability of chance for universes to come into existence, LEROY? What's the 'base chance'? What are you measuring there? What's the data? How many universes are in the set of data from which we can draw to make predictions or draw statistical conclusions, LEROY?

How are we going to produce a base line from which we can have a gradated perspective, LEROY?

There is no preferred referential frame there, LEROY. There never was. You're writing sci-fi, fiction, or more likely, poor theology.

We know you've got a god in your budgie-smugglers, LEROY, but you aren't getting in to the Land of Logic with it down your pants.

So, dismissed - it's just more assertionism on your part, and this time you think you can assert probabilities of universes' existence. A man who literally has no limits... to his unwarranted hubris.

leroy wrote:sure as the video explained, you don't have to assume that the low entropy of the universe was caused by chance, it could be that the low entropy was caused by some non random mechanism, you don't even need to invoke God, many naturalistic (chanceless) explanations have been proposed

You could invoke a cosmic hippo that shat it out, LEROY, and you'd have exactly the same degree of accuracy if you calculated the chance of that.

leroy wrote:well sex is usually a product of design (intent) therefore your analogy does not apply.

Assertion just makes you an ass.

Cite your source for this assertion, or consider it rejected by honest people with honest minds who value honesty.

Secondly, sex is not a product of design, so your typical bullshit obfuscation is dismissed. Next random assemblage of words you want to assert as reality.

Thirdly, sex is an evolved behavior, and the notion of intent with respect to evolved behaviors is full of genuine philosophical problems I've already educated you about, but which you've ignored and just trotted out again as if I'm just to accept your nonsensical bullshit as fact.

Fourthly, in reality, there's the appearance of design which is not design and therefore not intent, and there is design which is done with intent, and finally there is design which is designed but not done with intent.

You therefore won't confuse me with your subnormal intelligence equivocation, LEROY, but I will enjoy showing how you need to engage in simplification in order to sneak your pathetic arguments past critical scrutiny.

So all of your sentence was wrong and incoherent. Rejected. Not accepted. Therefore you can't continue to use it as a postulate in your discussion. You can either a) go back to the drawing board and explain yourself better, perhaps try and use empirical evidence for your claims that people can independently inspect, or b) you can try a new argument not yet used.

So what's the bet you choose c? The Goebbels School of Argumentation?

Sparhafoc you have no idea what you are talking about, this thread is not even about evolution or the evolution of sex, and the particular analogy that you where making with sex had nothing to do with evolution ether

the act of having sex requires intent, if you observe 2 people having sex then it is obvious that at least one of them intended to have sex.

leroy wrote:this is analogous to>if you consider the probabilities of having a universe with low that came in to existence by chance vs the probability of dreaming that you live in such universe, the second is more probable therefore if you observe yourself living in a universe with low entropy just by chance it is probably that you are just dreaming

Provide the calculations so they can be independently inspected, or your assertion is rejected as the wibbling of a barely sentient primate.

How does one calculate the probability of chance for universes to come into existence, LEROY? What's the 'base chance'? What are you measuring there? What's the data? How many universes are in the set of data from which we can draw to make predictions or draw statistical conclusions, LEROY?

How are we going to produce a base line from which we can have a gradated perspective, LEROY?

There is no preferred referential frame there, LEROY. There never was. You're writing sci-fi, fiction, or more likely, poor theology.

We know you've got a god in your budgie-smugglers, LEROY, but you aren't getting in to the Land of Logic with it down your pants.

So, dismissed - it's just more assertionism on your part, and this time you think you can assert probabilities of universes' existence. A man who literally has no limits... to his unwarranted hubris.

.

well obviously I don't have the exact numbers, but one doesn't need the exact data in order to infer that something is more likely than some other thing.

I already provided justification multiple times in this thread multiple times, but you can do your own research and look for Boltzmann Brain Paradox in any source that you consider reliable.

Of course, the actual truth is that you don't have any numbers, not a single number, because no one does. But hey, what's the difference between 0 and not 0, amirite?

Sadly, you then go on to slap your cock around again...

leroy wrote: but one doesn't need the exact data in order to infer that something is more likely than some other thing.

That's exactly what you would need to start asserting probabilities, LEROY. Assuming, of course, that credibility, or honesty, or reality is to have any bearing on the content of your claims.

leroy wrote:I already provided justification multiple times in this thread multiple times, but you can do your own research and look for Boltzmann Brain Paradox in any source that you consider reliable.

I have done my own research, chap, and I reject your bullshit assertions. You are wrong, and your confidence is wholly misplaced.